Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Mark analyses the German Federal Supreme Court’s (BGH) decisions on two
actions addressing requirements for mere conduit providers to be requested to
block access to infringing websites. Before being in the position to obtain
blocking injunctions, right holders have much to do, says the BGH.

Article 8(3)
of the InfoSoc Directive requires
Member States to "ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for
an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party
to infringe a copyright or related right." Does the notion of 'injunction'
also encompasses the possibility to seek a blocking order? The Stockholm
District Court does not appear to think so. But is this wrong? Eleonora tells
all.

"Should patents be strengthened, weakened or abolished
altogether?" is the bold question posited by the Centre
for International Governance Innovation (CIGI),
the Blackberry-founded research centre in Waterloo, Canada. CIGI
has published a policy brief on
the case for patents. Nicola reports.

As the US Senate Committee on theJudiciaryis holding a
hearing on "Protecting
Trade Secrets: the Impact of Trade Secret Theft on American
Competitiveness and Potential Solutions to Remedy this Harm", Annsley
reports on the current status of the trade secrets reform in the US – and
beyond.

After the earlier introduction post, the AmeriKat put her headphones on
and tuned into the live hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee on trade
secrets and the proposed Defend Trade Secrets Act (see her post).

Mark pens of the Enlarged Board of
Appeal of the European Patent Office’s (EPO) judgment in the G1/14 referral,
addressing the issue of whether a notice of appeal that was filed after
the time limit according to art. 108 EPC has to
be deemed inadmissible or not filed.

The EPO has issued a notice revising the PACE procedure (Procedure for Accelerated
Conduct of Examination) with effect from 1 January 2016. The PACE
programme is a means for applicants for European patents to speed up
prosecution of their applications which can otherwise sometimes move at a
somewhat glacial - er - pace. Beyond being a useful summary of existing
practice, there’s also something new, says Darren.

After
addressing plain packaging in Part I of this
series, Nicos takes a look at another kind of using brands to teach people how
to live. Do the “green”, “eco”, “healthy” and “back to basics” movements ring
any bell?

As Eponia
Emperor’s Mr Battistelli presents to Board 28 an updated proposal addressed to
the AC, the Boards’ Praesidium writes to the AC members in frustration,
disputing that they were properly consulted, and asking for their voices to be
heard. The floor goes to Merpel.

Despite the mostly negative connotation of the term today, some time ago
"hacker" referred to a person who was encouraged to tinker with the
software to improve its performance. Even today, though, “hacker” may be
good. How? Neil tells you.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!